All the teams ranked at the top are terrible. So I guess this means nothing.

02-04-2013, 10:33 AM

Kruunch

Well I could see where the Browns have drafted better than the Giants.

Having a Top 5 pick every year for a decade plays right into the law of averages.

/stupid article

02-04-2013, 11:16 AM

Kruunch

For my own private thoughts, I rate how the 1st and 2nd picks of each draft in terms of contribution and strength of position. Those picks are the ones that should be gold. After that I try to measure contribution vs. starting vs. strength of position.

Scale:

1 - Very good (started most of his career, contributed greatly to the team, strong at his position)
2 - Good (as above but may not have had majority of starts (dominant bench players, STers, etc ...)).
3 - Average (solid but did not exceed expectations)
4 - Below Average (contributed but failed to meet expectations and did not have longevity at position)
5 - Poor (ended up being roster filler and moved on or away from football)

Obviously the last couple of drafts are still in development and injury does play a large role in some cases, but that's how I have our drafts of the past 10 years graded.

02-04-2013, 08:38 PM

penguinfarmer

I guess it all depends on the equation used. I've seen some others try their hand at metrics using player accomplishments, player snaps and longevity and team retention where the Giants almost always rank top 5.

02-04-2013, 11:10 PM

nycsportzfan

This article isn't even worth reading.. Seriously, its dumb...

02-08-2013, 06:52 PM

drewz

A 10 for Matt Dodge? LOL.. the memories still haunt

I think Reese has been an above average drafter. He reaches too much on some picks, but usually is money in the first couple rounds.